TAKING ON TWO HEAD-SCRATCHERS

ROB KYFFTHE HARTFORD COURANT

Q: I have always been put off by the inaccurate use by the media of the words "near miss" to describe the activity of two aircraft that pass each other too closely. To me, a "near miss" is a hit. A hit is a "near miss," and a "near hit" would be a miss! What say you? -- Peter Bach, South Woodstock

A: True, one meaning of "near" is "almost happening," as in "near collision of the aircraft" or "near win in the election." Applying that definition, the term "near miss" would indeed be illogical, and the correct term would be "near hit" -- a hit that almost happened but didn't.

But another meaning of "near" is "close, narrow." That's the definition behind terms such as "near relative" (a close relative), "near escape" (a narrow escape), and, yes, "near miss." So a "near miss" is a miss that came very close to being a hit, while a "far miss" is a miss that wasn't even close.

Picture two boys throwing stones at a tin can. One misses by a mile and says, "That was a far miss." The other nearly hits the can and says, "That was a near miss." But when a pretty girl walks along very close to them, they both say in unison, "That's a near miss!"

Q: Isn't the word "co-conspirator" redundant? Doesn't the word "conspirator" imply that there is more than one conspirator? How come the "co-"? - Barbara Millett via email

A: I love this question because it gives me the chance to mention that that "conspiracy" derives from the Latin "conspirare," "to breathe together."

It is indeed tempting to condemn "co-conspirator" as a needless variant of "conspirator." After all, the similar word "copartner" is regarded as redundant.

But sometimes "co-conspirator" comes in handy. When, for instance, you're speaking or writing of conspirator X and you want to indicate that Y plotted with him, describing Y as a "conspirator" might leave doubt as to whether he was part of X's conspiracy or part of a different one. Describing Y as a "co-conspirator" makes it clear he was working with X.

One term that is almost always redundant is "conspire together," e.g. "Cassius and Brutus conspired together to kill Julius Caesar." But, as usage expert Bryan Garner notes, "conspire together" is acceptable when it's needed to complete a thought or create parallelism with another idea in the sentence, e.g. "Cassius and Brutus conspired together, so they should be tried together."

Et tu-gether, Brute?

Reach Rob Kyff at The Courant, Features Department, 285 Broad St., Hartford, CT 06115, or by e-mail at WordGuy@aol.com.